United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
May 8, 2014
United States of America,
William Perkins, Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge.
Defendant, proceeding pro se, seeks relief in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant asserts that the court's calculation of the guideline range violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). See Mot. at 6-10, ECF No. 1342. The Government filed a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Defendant of the summary judgment procedure and the consequences if he failed to respond. Defendant has not responded to the Government's motion and the time for doing so has expired.
The court has reviewed the complete record in this case. Even if Defendant's motion were timely under § 2255(f)(3) and this court were to find Alleyne retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review,  Alleyne has no applicability to Defendant's case. Defendant had two prior state court convictions which qualified him for the penalty of life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and 851. The Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne did not undermine its decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), which recognizes a "narrow exception to this general rule for the fact of a prior conviction." Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2160 n.1.
Accordingly, the Government is entitled to summary judgment and Defendant's motion for relief under § 2255 is dismissed with prejudice.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
The governing law provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability... shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find this court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability has not been met. Therefore, a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.